Back
2013 Supreme(J&K) 564
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
State Of J&K & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
Altaf Hussain & Ors. -Resopndent
CIA No. 203-A-2009, CIA No. 206-2009, CIA No. 211-2009
Decided On : 24-09-2013
S.A. Naik, Mohd. Amin Khan, M.Y. Bhat, J.H. Reshi, Mohd. Amin Khan, B.A. Misri, S.A. Naik.
The duty of the claimants to prove entitlement to higher compensation, the consideration of prevalent rates at the relevant point of time, and the burden of proving inadequacy of the amount on the claimants.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Acquisition - AIR 1998 SC 2470, 2010 (5) JKJ SC-582, 2006 (1) JKJ[HC] 114 - The court disposed of all the appeals by a common judgment. The claimants disputed the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector and sought enhancement. The reference Court, after examining the evidence and other documents, enhanced the compensation in all cases. The prevalent rates at the relevant point of time were considered, and the claimants were awarded compensation based on the reports of the revenue agency. The court cited legal provisions and interpretations from various judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants disputed the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector and sought enhancement. The reference Court, after examining the evidence and other documents, enhanced the compensation in all cases. The prevalent rates at the relevant point of time were considered, and the claimants were awarded compensation based on the reports of the revenue agency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded by the reference Court was adequate and well reasoned, and therefore dismissed all the appeals and cross appeals.
Issues: Dispute over the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector, enhancement of compensation, consideration of prevalent rates at the relevant point of time, and the duty of the claimants to prove entitlement to higher compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prevalent rates at the relevant point of time, as indicated by the reports of the revenue agency, were a guiding factor for grant of compensation. It also emphasized the duty of the claimants to prove entitlement to higher compensation and the burden of proving inadequacy of the amount on them.
Final Decision: All the appeals and cross appeals were dismissed by the court.
2. CIA No. 203-A/2009
Collector, LAWDA passed the award in favour of claimants-land owners on 19.03.2002. Claimants while disputing the adequacy of compensation laid a motion before the Collector for making reference to the concerned District Judge. Collector, LAWDA, accordingly, made a reference to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar, was diarized as Reference No. 3/2002. Learned District Judge after examining/scanning the evidence and other documents enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2.30 lacs to Rs. 4.00 lacs per kanal and also awarded compensation under the head wooden poles and warbed wires vide judgment dated 14.10.2008. State feeling aggrieved has filed the instant appeal questioning the same. Claimants have not questioned the judgment of reference court by the medium of any cross appeal.
3. CIA No. 206/2009
Collector, LAWDA passed the award in favour of claimants-land owners on 12.11.2001. Claimants while disputing the adequacy of compensation laid a motion before the Collector for making reference to the concerned District Judge. Collector, LAWDA, accordingly, made a reference to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar, was diarized as Reference No. 10-A/2002. Learned District Judge after examining/scanning the evidence and other documents enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2.30 lacs to Rs. 4.00 lacs per kanal and also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- under the head wood poles and warbed wires vide judgment dated 14.10.2008. State feeling aggrieved has filed the instant appeal questioning the same. Claimants have not questioned the judgment of reference court by the medium of any cross appeal.
4. CIA No. 211/2009
Collector, LAWDA passed the award in favour of claimants-land owners on 01.06.1999. Claimants while disputing the adequacy of compensation laid a motion before the Collector for making reference to the concerned District Judge. Collector, LAWDA, accordingly, made a reference to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar, was diarized as Reference No. 15/2002. Learned District Judge after examining/scanning the evidence and other documents enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1.40 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs per kanal and also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- under the head fencing vide judgment dated 31.10.2008. State feeling aggrieved has filed the instant appeal questioning the same. Claimants have also filed Cross Appeal, bearing no. 64/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. CIA No. 10/2010
Collector, LAWDA passed the award in favour of claimants-land owners on 01.06.1999. Claimants while disputing the adequacy of compensation laid a motion before the Collector for making reference to the concerned District Judge. Collector, LAWDA, accordingly, made a reference to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar, was diarized as Reference No. 6/2002. Learned District Judge after examining/scanning the evidence and other documents enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4.00 lacs per kanal vide judgment dated 03.11.2009. State feeling aggrieved has filed the instant appeal questioning the same. Claimants-respondents 3 to 12 have also filed Cross Appeal, bearing no. 59/2010 seeking enhancement of compensation. Claimants-respondents 1 & 2 have filed CIA No. 32/2010 seeking enhancement of compensation. Virtually the CIA filed by claimants-respondents 1 & 2 is a cross appeal.
6. CIA No. 11/2010
Collector, LAWDA passed the award in favour of claimants on 01.06.1999. Claimants while disputing the adequacy of compensation laid a motion before the Collector for making reference to the concerned District Judge. Collector, LAWDA, accordingly, made a reference to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar, was diarized as Reference No. 1/2003. Learned District Judge after examining/scanning the evidence and other documents enhanced the compensation to
